Tag Archives: society

How Intermittent Fasting Reset My Habits

And how it can do the same for you

Intermittent fasting has been touted as one of the most miraculous health changes you can make. It’s trending everywhere. Seriously, everyone is doing it. You’re not doing it? Not very cool of you. Are you one of those uncool people? You are? My condolences.

They say it’s good for reducing insulin resistance, combating cravings, and burning visceral fat, but less is said about the habitual side of this activity.

Setting a definitive time to start eating — this is usually 12, noon — has really revolutionised my eating habits. Let’s dive in (no, not with you fork) below.

Brings Structure

For those of us who struggle with snacking (my hand is up, believe me), having some routine to the times we can and cannot eat is really important. Knowing when it’s ok to eat, and when it’s not, in my personal experience, gives me enough structure to eat less often. Paradoxically, structure helps free you from the whims of your cravings and appetite. If you know when to eat, you’re less likely to eat outside of these times. Pair that with your now improving insulin sensitivity and shrinking stomach (the stomach will change as you eat less frequently and in smaller portions), and structured eating has the potential to improve your health dramatically.

Made Me Choose Healthier Options

When your eating window is reduced, you’re more likely to eat better, knowing that you need the nutrition to get on with the day. Now, whenever I break my fast, I scream ‘HEALTH!’ as I blitz an assortment of fruits and veggies for a nutritional feast. My neighbors, they do not speak to me anymore.

Not only this, coffee, which I used to drench in full-fat milk, has to be black during your fasting period. No room on this one. You have to ditch the cream and milk and go black. Sooner than you realise, however, it’s like you never even missed it (unlike your housemate’s repeated heckling to ‘take out the trash’, which you miss repeatedly, even defiantly). Coffee still brings that delicious bitterness and satisfying buzz that it’s always done, just with less calories, and without the anti-inflammatory contribution of dairy.

I also increased my water intake (I am about 99% water now, like a sea-jelly), which, as the science suggests, can reduce dehydration and aid digestion — result! I try to go for filtered water, mainly for the taste (it can filter out impurities, like the yoga you do to block out Becky’s negativity at work). Even if you’re drinking more nasty tap water, it’s still a move in the right direction — well done!

Easier to Say ‘No’

Repeat after me:

‘No.’

‘No, thank you.’

‘Good day sir!’

‘Not today, Satan.’

‘Oh helllll no.’

‘Not even if you were the Dalai Lama.’

Seriously, you’re going to become an angel of divine declination. You’re going to get so good at saying ‘no’ to people, they’ll write to ‘scrooge-watch’ to have you visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future! When they get there, you’ll say ‘no’ to them too!

It’s actually a really good habit to get into with people. If you’re taking your health seriously and fasting properly, you’re going to say that word a lot, and people will get the message eventually. When it gets through, your life will get easier and healthier as a result.

The Takeaway (No, You Are Not Ordering Takeaway)

Aside from the obvious health benefits you can get from fasting, the habits it helps you form can give you a boost towards a healthier lifestyle. You’re given some structure to your eating schedule, you can make healthier choices during your fast, and you’re going to get better at saying ‘no’ to people. These are essential to turning your health around. You’ll thank me later. I am a genius. Very clever. It’s because of all the fasting I do, and the daily health-scream as I blitz my vegetables. That kind of primal energy really gives you vitality. You should try it — it’s great.

I’m on Medium, follow me here for health, mental health, society and funny bits, and subscribe it you haven’t already!

Colour Me In Trust – Sensitive Data and Colour Psychology

We all know that a great deal of marketing strategy goes into making an app, more so those apps that go onto become successful and lasting presences in our daily lives.

But what if I told you that part of what makes an app successful is the colour it conveys to us in its design?

What does it say about an app that subliminally attempts to infiltrate the user’s subconscious defences with colour? Should we trust the apps that have utilised these psychological attacks?

Facebook, Twitter, Google Authenticator, the Iphone email app. What do they have in common other than their pervasive and integrated use in society?

They are all blue…

apps in blue

A harmless coincidence, I am sure many are thinking, but when we apply colour psychology, we begin to see that blue means something to the human psyche.

Blue conveys a number of qualities. It is calming and serene, indicating stability, order and reliability. These qualities are foremost indicative of a central core quality that is constancy, which in turn coaxes trust from the observer.

We naturally trust what is dependable and unchanging. This is hardwired into our DNA. Change presents danger, constancy, safety. Our primitive and precursory nervous systems submit to fear above all else, and changes in our perception of it are strong impulses, even now as we use our more developed prefrontal cortex to modulate our feelings and primal instincts.

colour me blue

What else is trust? It does not only relate to our monkey brain response to fear stimuli, but also to the quality of sedation which is linked to calmness and tranquillity. Sedation is the quality of calmness induced usually by drug use. A major class or type of drug, the sedative artificially induces sleep, quiet or calm in the patient. Blue is a natural visual sedative because of the qualities which it carries with the subconscious.

So, your blue apps are constantly signalling, often unbeknownst to you, that they are ‘trustworthy’, that you should be calm and sedated while using them.

Some of you may be thinking, ‘this sounds like a good idea – I would like to be calmer when I use apps!’ And on the surface, it is not a bad idea to encourage trust in users, but we must look at this within the wider subtext of the apps in question.

Almost always, these are apps that deal with sensitive information, personal information, data which, if in the wrong hands, can wreak personal and social havoc.

How many political scandals have involved email interceptions or coincidental ‘misplacement’ of important records and vital evidences? How many times do we need to see Facebook implicated in public data mining incidents like the Analytica scandal?

Almost none of the apps that claim the colour of trust as their own, can be trusted to secure personal information which protects the public. In some cases, these apps are actively deceiving us into selling our information for some universal need, be it connection to one another, or communication in all variety of personal and professional lanes.

With that in mind, one does wonder: ‘What does an app that has no interest in public trust need to convey subliminal trust to its users?’ It is one thing to claim you are trustworthy overtly, but to claim it in such an insidious way strikes of ill-intent from the start.

Take care to consider the colour of the apps that you use. They are telling you something without saying it to you in a way you may consciously understand. Such covert methods must be considered in the light of suspicion.

Blue blinkers hood our eyes. Actions speak louder than words. It is what you do and say, not the colour you convey, which earns honest respect. It is time our social media giants started being trustworthy, rather than dressing up in its colours. We deserve honesty, not trickery, and that your apps are blue, while your social profiles are picked clean by your providers, like carrion for crows, we are no closer to honesty and racing towards deceit.

In nature, dangerous things signal their danger in the colour they display. Yellow is poisonous and red signals danger. The primordial flush of fear we feel is written into our DNA.

Blue is not always order and trust, but sometimes deception and sedation.

The banner must meet the carrier in action, or it is a lie.

Watch for the banner your apps carry. Turncloaks and mercenaries carry many flags, almost always for pride, power or gold.

J

Write a letter, start a revolution.

Dear reader,

I was talking with a friend I met through a poetry group on Facebook the other day. I was deciding to leave the platform and, as always, he had a novel suggestion. I had asked for his details because I wanted to stay in touch with people off the platform. If you look at my previous post Facebook, what have you done to us?, I decided to leave Facebook for various reasons, ethical, behavioural and psychological. His idea was this: ‘Let’s write a letter to each other’.

I thought to myself how peculiar that was and was meditating on the idea a bit. Why have we stopped writing letters? Well, the clear answer is that the internet does it faster. Sure, the internet has revolutionised communication but is that a good thing?

We used to take time to think and reflect on all the amazing things that happen to us in the weeks and months. Carefully, we’d curate a picture of our lives that showed all the most meaningful experiences we’d had lately in the two-fold process of consolidating and processing it for ourselves, and sharing with others.

I thought about what it would be like to receive a letter that was not about doctors appointments or bills, written in an individual font, addressed to me, the person, not me, the body, number or consumer. I came to the conclusion that writing letters to close ones is probably the most counter cultural, revolutionary thing young people can do in an age saturated by technology, and so coked up on its own sophistication, it’s losing any meaning or value it might once have had.

So here’s my challenge to you. Write three letters this month. Really think about your life and what has happened. Share it with those you care about but don’t see often enough. Tell me in the comments below that you posted it and that you’re taking up this counter revolution against technology. Heck, if you want, post a selfie with your letters! It’s nice to get feedback that we’re making changes! We need to slow down and think at the speed of a letter.

Share this article with friends and family. We’re re-writing the future, one hand-written letter at a time.

Yours sincerely,

Julian

Contact us if you have ideas or would like to share your thoughts on society.

5 Takeaways from Kanye’s Visit to the Whitehouse

The internet roared in response to Kanye’s dinner with Trump yesterday. If you were on Twitter at the time, it felt as if the two meeting had the impact of comets colliding in space, or the shuddering vibrations of the Earth’s tectonic plates. Surprising really, considering the placid, amicable discussion the two had together, never really feeling heated, never having the essence of catastrophe that so many highlighted online.

This was a frank discussion about beliefs, values and political standpoints between two happy, consenting adults. Sure, Kanye runs away with himself at times, probably more to do with nerves and excitement at the opportunity to speak to someone he admires more intimately. Even so, though his speech is sometimes rapid and disorganised, there’s a degree of truth in some of the things he says, and a great deal of hypocrisy from the liberal media in response to his genuine comments.

tuckeron kanye

Tucker sees some wisdom in Kanye’s enthusiastic discussion.

So, let’s look at the 5 main takeaways from the #kanyetrump dinner:

1. Swearing is not the worst thing that’s happened in the Oval office.

So, let’s be real about this, a little swearing is probably the least awful thing that’s happened in the White House. As Ben Shapiro was quick to point out in a twitter response to Jim Acosta who himself tweeted ‘Kanye just said ‘motherf***er’ in the Oval Office. Per WH pool.’, Shapiro responds: ‘And Clinton had Oral Sex in there. So if we’re going to talk about degrading the location…’. And he’s got a point. A few expletives aimed at no one in particular are, by histories standards, nothing to write home about.

clinton shapiro tweet

Ben Shapiro reminds people, a couple of swears is not the worst thing to happen in the Oval Office.

2. Kanye is looking for a role model, something we are sorely lacking.

Kanye launched into a discussion about the MAGA hat he wore, and how it made him feel during the campaign for Donald Trump’s presidency. With bright eyes, he exclaims ‘it made me feel like superman!’ and comments that while Hilary’s campaign ‘I’m with Her’ was fine, it didn’t make him feel the same way that Trump’s campaign did. ‘As a guy that didn’t get to see my dad all the time’, Kanye explains, Trump’s campaign made him feel ‘like a guy that could play catch with his son.’. And he’s right. People are screaming for good role models, arguably men more so than any other demographic. Many rallied on this point to show their support.

3. Using someone’s mental health as a way to shut them up is not Democratic.

It’s stunning that a day after #WorldMentalHealthDay happened and with the hashtag still trending on Twitter, CNN news anchors and other left-wing media outlets immediately attacked Kanye on grounds of insanity. A white female news anchor launched into an attack on the soundness of Kanye’s mind, stating ‘I think you had there a man who’s clearly not OK and a president who’s willing to exploit that’, further dragging Trump into the firing line to make him out as some monster manipulator of the mentally ill. She then goes onto describe the dinner as a ‘circus’, having just a sentence ago voiced outrage at the lack of address of mental health issues and race relations between Kanye and Trump. Make up your mind CNN. Are you advocates for mental health or are you part of the problem?

mentalhealthhypocrisy

Just a day after #MentalHealthAwarenessDay, CNN discredits Kanye by claiming he’s ‘clearly not OK’ and describes the dinner as a ‘circus’.

4. White anchors speaking on behalf of black people seems a little racist, doesn’t it?

Many were quick to point out that a large proportion of reports in the liberal media were from white anchors speaking for black people and using racial outrage as a weapon to discredit both Kanye and Trump. Others were quick to point out that even where there were black speakers on the topic of Kanye and Trump, black people were only allowed a viewpoint if it was strictly in line with the interests of the Democratic party.

twowhitepeople

A twitter user points out the hypocrisy of white anchors discussing the opinions of Kanye, a black man.

 

heyblackpeople.png

Can you even have a right-wing view and be black? CNN says ‘no’.

5. Using someone’s dead mother as a smear doesn’t seem all that professional.

Don Lemon, speaking for CNN, later commented that ‘Kanye’s mother is rolling over in her grave’ at the opinions and views of her son. That’s a bitter Lemon indeed. Is this a game of limbo? How low can you go CNN?

thedailycallerkanye.png

Don Lemon’s comments about Kanye’s dead mother used as smear against political opinion.

Is Being Honest a Form of Brain Damage?

Recently I watched an interview between Katie Hopkins, controversial columnist and journalist from the UK talk about her book ‘Rude’, with interviewers Paul Ross and Carole Malone of Talk Radio. In the interview, Hopkins was asked very little about her book, other than to comment that it was, in fact, ‘rude’, as far as Ross was concerned. Then, as usual, the two began the dogmatic drudgery of common media interview technique, to zone in on this point, asking why Hopkins is so rude all the time, all the while giving her less than no time to respond before cutting into her reply. ‘Read the book!’, she says, and she’s right, it exists to address the ‘why’ of that question so commonly raised in debates. And Hopkins makes as much of the milliseconds she gets to reply to make this point. A testament to her ability to cut through the bullshit and make herself heard. If you aren’t given the platform you thought, find the shortest way to make your point, a skill that Hopkins has mastered completely.

If the manner of the interview technique wasn’t enough to wind you up (even Hopkins was showing signs of irritation with Ross), the pair, primarily Malone, sidled into talking about Hopkins’ frank discussion about her past experiences with seizures and brain surgery. This was handled with all the delicacy of a lobotomy and none of the delicacy of the modern brain surgeon, something TalkRadio, the BBC and other left-leaning media outlets could do with ruminating on, not that someone as resilient and rambunctious as Hopkins was affected mind you. With an alarmingly quick preamble through Hopkins’ experiences, Malone launches into a question which is interesting and deserves a deeper discussion: ‘do you think that tumour, in some way contributed to your outspokenness?’, she asks Hopkins, which Ross interjects to clarify, assuming she means as a result of the struggle which Hopkins faced every day to go to work while suffering seizures. Malone replies ‘not even that’, wondering instead if the tumour ‘physically’ had ‘some kind of impact’ on Hopkins’ brain. Essentially, Malone is suggesting that Katie Hopkins is loud, brave, honest and empowered because a tumour ate away at the parts of her brain which should make her meek, gentle, kind and passive. She effectively asks the question ‘does brain damage maketh-the woman?’.

And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen news of the pathology of the right-wing. Several articles and videos have been calling for Donald Trump to step down over beliefs that his mental health is unsound. On the website ‘Real Clear Politics’ (already a worrying overemphasis of transparency by title), an article with a video of an interview with Psychiatrist Dr John Gartner suggests that Trump exhibits ‘malignant narcissism’, consisting of ‘narcissism’, ‘paranoia’, playing the ‘victim’ and ‘demonization of the opposition’.

One might think to themselves that nearly any successful politician (or indeed successful anybody) falls under these personality traits. Narcissism drives success, especially in the public eye. Being able to make use of the oppositions faults and find ways to deflect blame are tantamount to good business acumen. A healthy dose of paranoia keeps someone on their toes against threats to one’s position, such as a political coup from inside your own party, or character assassinations from without. It’s a spectrum, and when you’re just a little narcissistic, it’s not always a bad thing. Vital nuance that Gartner fails to factor into the discussion.

The left has, for a long time now, taken a protectionist stance on mental health. If you’re unwell, mentally, you should have treatment, with respect and dignity, and with the belief that you should have a happy, functional life. And yet, if you’re on the right and suspected of mental illness, how are you treated? As if a scourge to erase. Protectionist only so far as it suits personal political interests it seems. Over and above all of this, Gartner expresses a lack of professionalism as he equates those with pathological narcissism (a real psychiatric disorder) to ‘the essence of evil’. Should we be listening to the advice of Psychiatrists who are prepared to ascribe moral values to the people they treat?

So let’s think about this as a whole. If brain trauma can make us better speakers, less inhibited and more honest, and the vast majority of people gravitate towards people who speak frankly and with gravitas, then what does that say about ‘normal’ people? If the people who have normal brain function agree with Hopkins, but would never admit it themselves, what does this say about the normal human brain? Is a ‘healthy’ brain a lying brain? Now, before we explore that point, let me put a few things straight. First, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a ‘normal’ brain. Second, I am not for one minute suggesting that people with brain damage are ‘superior beings’ with a paranormal propensity for parcelling truth. This is an exploration of what Malone’s statement says about her views and also what a view like that might mean for our society. What does it mean for people with brazen views? What does it mean for people who disagree with Hopkins’ methods? And above all, why is a core virtue such as truth now on the verge of being (in the eyes of some) a pathological, even medical disease?

Let’s play devil’s advocate here, humouring Malone’s position for a toasty minute. So what are the implications for Hopkins’ successes being down to nothing more than the excision of a part of her brain? Well, for one, it erases a life of experience which really adds up to show us plainly why Hopkins does what she does. Living with seizures, finding out that a tumour is eating away at your brain. Being told that you have a life expectancy of two years if you don’t have risky brain surgery. Having to wake up every day in pain, knowing, inevitably, that the force of your bodies spasms will almost certainly dislocate your shoulders each night. These are the experiences that make a person strong through pain, and direct, because life really might be over sooner rather than later. And who knows about this? Virtually nobody unless they read her book (who reads books these days anyway?) because she doesn’t talk about it. The left is obsessed with providing a platform for victims and here an individual, having lived a harder life than most, has never overtly spoken about personal hardship in the public sphere. When you know it, everything makes sense. This is someone who values the truth because life is too short to lie, a bitter pill in itself, but one we all need to hear.

Real, human experience aside, where’s the consistency in an argument like this? Here we’re implying that somehow, having a mental illness or brain damage makes you less trustworthy, less able to convey an opinion of clout than someone who doesn’t have these things. But again, we see from the left, a malaise of mashed principles. Is it not ableist to suggest people with mental illness or brain damage cannot be taken seriously? The kind of implicated thinking behind Malone’s question seems to smack of hypocrisy. Furthermore, if we discredit a person’s opinion, their voice, based on the fact that they have a neurological disorder or mental illness (or both), what do we leave them with? It’s anti-feminist, racist, classist, ableist and sexist because it takes away the right of a person’s voice by discrediting it on the basis of something they cannot change. It is a perfect contradiction in terms and the left wing make it unabashedly.

And why is it that we now live in a culture that is on the verge of using appeals to insanity or brain damage in order to discredit people who are honest about what they believe? Is telling the truth a disorder? Is the lie natural and normal in human interaction? Perhaps it is, for now. But should it be? There is a sense that people like to hear the truth, even if they’re not prepared to say it themselves, and perhaps its time for as many of us as possible to bridge the gap between what we think and what we say. As for me, if it means that telling the truth is about the same as having a brain tumour, or brain trauma, then take me to the hospital. I’ll be honest Doc, all the way to the operating room.

Please follow Millennial Intent for more ideas on liberty, freedom of speech, and the direction of political discussion in society. Leave us a comment if you loved this article, we love speaking to you about your ideas. Have a great day and use your voice, you deserve to be heard.